Bioelectromagnetics
- Thread starter cogreslab
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bioelectromagnetics
- Status
It is a moral outrage. I have no idea about the UK. The US certainly has its share of loonies, but the US also has clear laws against inciting to commit crimes. Does the UK not have such a law? Can one prosecute such despicable behavior in the US since the challenge is international?Ed said:
I don't understand something. This contention is an extremly easy thing to test. 5 groups of 100 rats each located at varying distances from the source. Clip their ears to that those whoopsies that seem to be attracted by out of the ordinary claims seem to attract. Flux meters with continuous recording with each cage.
With the appropriate safe guards in place to prevent tampering and histology on the dead guys, you'd have an experiment. I'd hypothesise that deaths would fall off as a function of 1 over the square of the distance from the sourse.
Like everything else in the less than normal world there is not a clear experiment, just hype and excuses.
With the appropriate safe guards in place to prevent tampering and histology on the dead guys, you'd have an experiment. I'd hypothesise that deaths would fall off as a function of 1 over the square of the distance from the sourse.
Like everything else in the less than normal world there is not a clear experiment, just hype and excuses.
a third possibility, presented only for the chance to explore the question...BillHoyt said:
3. This is an attempt at satire, not unlike Swift's "A Modest Proposal", though not as well written. It is meant to show in stark terms how ludicrous the claims are. The whole website, thus, is a LandoverBaptist.com for pseudoscience, and probably donates all its profits to JREF or CSICOP....
I stay with my challenge. Why don't you guys ask the NRPB why they advise the public there is no hazard to health below 12,000 (recently revised downward to 5000) volts per metre, yet don't risk picking up an easy (to them) 3000 bucks by taking up my challenge? You are sniping at your own side here.
The reason none of these NRPB or utilities staff have ever put their own infants where their advice is, is because their advice is flawed and they know it. By way of evidence I will extend the prize to 5000 dollars, and to any of those reading this forum with infant children who believe the NRPB sufficiently to pick up the money. None of you will. Correct? I will leave this offer open for 30 days, so if you have friends with infants under three months old you have time to tell them to join the forum.
Come on. Here's chance for your or your friends to pick up an easy 5000 dollars! If no one picks up this easy money it means either you beleive what I am saying all along, or you don't trust the NRPB's advice.
The reason none of these NRPB or utilities staff have ever put their own infants where their advice is, is because their advice is flawed and they know it. By way of evidence I will extend the prize to 5000 dollars, and to any of those reading this forum with infant children who believe the NRPB sufficiently to pick up the money. None of you will. Correct? I will leave this offer open for 30 days, so if you have friends with infants under three months old you have time to tell them to join the forum.
Come on. Here's chance for your or your friends to pick up an easy 5000 dollars! If no one picks up this easy money it means either you beleive what I am saying all along, or you don't trust the NRPB's advice.
OK None of you evidently has checked out my reference to Stormshak and Lee's powerline studies. In fact Gerry Lee's study was on sheep not cattle, so please accept my apologies for the late night error. BTW we don't do animal experiments in my laboratory: you cannot argue that what may happen with a mammal when exposed will also happen with a human being.
Geni why do you want to spoil the drama here? We are talking about kids. Mr. Coghill wants to inspire fear by hitting below the belt so, I am offering to pay him to provide us with a demo on his child since this is how much he estimates a child's life.
cogreslab said:
Yes I can. You would have to demonstrate why animal models don't work in this case.
That is a rather convenient out, if I do say so, so is the sanctimonious statement about not doing animal experiments. It is rough to take the moral high ground when you would endanger a human.
The lack of a direct test of your contentions suggests very strongly that you are engaged in a Public Relations stunt.
No geni. Let me explain why. The human infant is born with the intracranial myelinisation incompleted, unlike most mammals. It takes about a year for this myelinisation process to complete in humans. This may be why some animals can get up and walk almost at birth. If the human mother waited to complete the myelinisation process of her infant, the cranium would be too large to pass down the birth canal. That's the price all humans pay for their large skulls. So adult humans would not adequately reflect the challenge which external E-fields impose on the human infant's corpus callosum (an area of the brain responsible for sending signals to the cells to divide). Infants are sending these signals for cell division because they are growing fast, at a rate never acheived again in adult life, and they have to do so with a largely unmyelinated commissure. Adults have fully myelinated corpora callosa and do not have the same probelm.
A pathological evaluation by Prof Emery at Sheffield in 1976 found that in some 100 cases of sudden infant death the thin myelin sheath around these infant corpus callosal fibres had fallen away and re-coagulated around the neighbouring blood vessels, indicating some thermal effect. That is why it has to be an infant, not a mammal, and not an adult. The NRPB are perfectly aware of this problem: the external E-field causes the infant to increase the amplitude of its cerebral signals with a corpus callosum not yet ready to take the heat of these transmissions. The result is a catastrophic breakdown, caused by the challenge exerted by one electric field (external) on another (endogenous), because electric fields are superpositive. Only since the arrival of electricity have we humans had to contend with this problem, since we have no previous evolutionary exposure to alternating ELF EM fields. As I say, the NRPB are perfectly aware of this problem, and will not risk their infants because of it.
A pathological evaluation by Prof Emery at Sheffield in 1976 found that in some 100 cases of sudden infant death the thin myelin sheath around these infant corpus callosal fibres had fallen away and re-coagulated around the neighbouring blood vessels, indicating some thermal effect. That is why it has to be an infant, not a mammal, and not an adult. The NRPB are perfectly aware of this problem: the external E-field causes the infant to increase the amplitude of its cerebral signals with a corpus callosum not yet ready to take the heat of these transmissions. The result is a catastrophic breakdown, caused by the challenge exerted by one electric field (external) on another (endogenous), because electric fields are superpositive. Only since the arrival of electricity have we humans had to contend with this problem, since we have no previous evolutionary exposure to alternating ELF EM fields. As I say, the NRPB are perfectly aware of this problem, and will not risk their infants because of it.
cogreslab said:
Sir, are you really serious? Are you suggesting that mylenization would increase the head size that much? In any event, even if you are correct the solution is simple: Use timed pregnant Rats, you might even examine the fall off in deaths depending on time in utero, if your hypothesis is correct. a 5 by 5 design, very neat.
Incedientially, there are a number of commisures. Why the CC and why does a nerve bundle "send" signals. You have evidence that nerves actually mediate the splitting of cells? How might that occur? You are surely aware that there is an incomplete decussation, are you not? How does this enter into it?
I think that I solved your experimental objection.
No we have never used infants in our experiments, even with static magnets. Except maybe by accident we used some infant earthworms once. The worms were monitored all the time, all were healthy and all were returned to the garden after the experiment with static magnets, It helped us configure the magnetic polar set up we were developing, because it showed there was no difference in bioeffect between the north and the south pole. But i guess you may not be interested in these twenty years of research we have conducted into static magnets.
I hope what may be coming out of this dialoguie is the rule of thumb that static magnetic fields (such as we have always been accustomed to from e.g. the earth's magnetic field), are largely beneficial, whereas the alternating electric field (of which we have no evolutionary experience) is hazardous and competes detrimentally with existing life processes.
I hope what may be coming out of this dialoguie is the rule of thumb that static magnetic fields (such as we have always been accustomed to from e.g. the earth's magnetic field), are largely beneficial, whereas the alternating electric field (of which we have no evolutionary experience) is hazardous and competes detrimentally with existing life processes.
Cleopatra said:
Your feelthy, feelthy Greek marbles are all belong to us. Bwahahahahahahahahaha
Hey Cleo, you ever get to the Alexandria Armory? I understand that they have some nifty Crusader swords captured during the third crusade. Could you nick me one? Failing that, you might keep your eyes open for books on the subject.
- Status